A Complicated Question

Asked by Oprah Winfrey if she still loves her husband, Elizabeth Edwards responds "You know, that's a complicated question." I can relate. I too loved John Edwards, one of just three American politicians on the national stage, the others are Paul Simon and Paul Tsongas, in my adulthood who so moved me. John Edwards inspired me to become more deeply involved in the political process for the first time in over a decade. I believed in John Edwards like I have believed in few others.

And I remain thankful to John Edwards for two things. First, he spoke forcefully and eloquently of eradicating poverty as a moral imperative and thus reawakened a long dormant debate on social inequality in this country. Not to deny that others also attempted to raise these issues, but John Edwards successfully made it part of our national conversation. That is to his lasting credit. Second, he moved Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democratic party leftward like no politician had done since Bobby Kennedy or perhaps George McGovern. Because of John Edwards' lead, the Democratic Party has begun to rediscover its working class roots all too often lost in the parched fog of thirty years in a political desert.

But John Edwards did the party, the nation and above all his family a great disservice in running for President. I am stuck by this passage from Elizabeth's forthcoming book, Resilience:

I wanted him to drop out of the race, protect our family from this woman, from his act. It would only raise questions, he said, he had just gotten in the race; the most pointed questions would come if he dropped out days after he had gotten in the race. And I knew that was right, but I was afraid of her.

And now he knows I was right to be afraid, that once he had made this dreadful mistake, he should not have run. But just then he was doing, I believe, what I was trying to do: hold on to our lives despite this awful error in judgment.

That he should not have run is blatantly obvious but I wonder if John Edwards realizes that error in judgment. Complicated questions remain but frankly it is time to let this sad affair lapse into the deepest recesses of our memories and let John Edwards' political ambitions perish on the folly of his own capriciousness. But let us hope that his voice may yet again be raised in the cause of eradicating poverty. That moral imperative remains intact.

Tags: Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards (all tags)

Comments

35 Comments

What If

What if Gore had picked Edwards in 2000?

What if, what if.

I'm sure they wouldn't have won NC, but the combination of Gore's vision and Edward's perceived vibrancy of youth might have put them over the top in Florida.

Oh well!

by Zeitgeist9000 2009-05-05 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: A Complicated Question

I found Edwards' presentation lacking, seemingly insincere. While I thought his heart was in the right place he struck me as phony.  I suppose his political past opposing labor, voting non-progressive and being a founding member of the New Democrats, the Senate arm of the DLC, were all red flags to me that seemed to cast the sudden reversals of points of views towards the progressive tilt in the dubious light of opportunism, knowing full well that progressive values were going to sell to Democratic primary voters in this cycle.  

I am unhappy that Elizabeth Edwards, who deserves all the sympathy in the world for what she is going through, decided to back her husband in his quest for the presidency after learning about the affair early on, knowing full well that an Edwards nomination would lead to electoral disaster for the Democrats and to general disaster for the country. She should have persuaded Edwards that it was entirely foolish and downright criminal to go on, and if he refused she should have excused herself from the race altogether instead of going to bat for Edwards as strongly as she did, every day.  

by devilrays 2009-05-05 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: A Complicated Question

IF he were a Repug. he would be in ascendency.

by aliasalias 2009-05-05 09:52PM | 0 recs
Exactly!

Only Gay sex is punished in the Republican party...

Hookers, paying off the mistress...hell, as long as it's straight, standing ovation from the party of family values!

by WashStateBlue 2009-05-05 10:35PM | 0 recs
Have to disagree just a bit

I never really bought Edwards sudden embrace of populism.

He was such a typical southern centerist in his voting pattern in Congress.

I think he thought he had a winning strategy, and no one ever said he wasn't smart.

Still, I looked at the sum total of all his votes and I saw DLC written all over it.

I loved his message. I didn't trust the messenger.

by WashStateBlue 2009-05-05 10:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Have to disagree just a bit

Do you think he has a future? Or is he done?

by Charles Lemos 2009-05-05 11:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Have to disagree just a bit

Maury Povich wants to DNA test the kid on TV...  

He's done... forever...

by LordMike 2009-05-05 11:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Have to disagree just a bit

done. big time.

by devilrays 2009-05-06 01:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Have to disagree just a bit

Depends on what future you are speaking of...

Running for elected office?

One would be better placing money on Jimmy Carter or George McGovern winning elected office again before John Edwards.

by Obamaphile 2009-05-06 02:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Have to disagree just a bit

Not done making a pantload of money.  Done politically?  Yes.

I never believed a word that came out of his mouth.

by lojasmo 2009-05-06 04:21AM | 0 recs
Toasted...

Persona non grata...

There is a diary asking, what he did that is worse then Newt?  

Well, to put it bluntly, Elizabeth.

No one knew Mrs. Ginrich when Newt visited here in the hospital with the divorce papers.

Part and parcel of John's entire package was Elizabeth.

Secondly, at the time this all came out, I said, any second rate guitarist in a Seattle band sees Reily what's-her-name-change across the bar-room floor and runs the other way.

She SCREAMED trouble with a capital T!

Yet, John let his ego be stroked, and not just his ego.

I think, like Bill, the cheating is a private affair.

Handing a grenade to someone likely to shove it up your backside means you are politically flawed to the Nth degree.

Like all these guys, he thought he would get away with it? Why?  None of them ever do.

Ego, pure BS ego.

Yes, he may do the Oprah forgiveness tour, and maybe go to work for some non-profit, but in  Democratic party politics, he's gone gone gone.

by WashStateBlue 2009-05-06 04:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Have to disagree just a bit

I think he has a future... but probably not in elected office.  That being said, there are many politicians that cheated and came back big time... Heck look at Newt with his dispicable sick bed divorce.   Gore looked like toast for a few years and now is an elder statesman for the Country.

Edwards needs to get out of the spotlight.  He needs to take his pet project, Poverty, and work hard on it just like Gore with Global Warming.   In a few years, he might be able to make a comeback somewhere.

by 30000Fine 2009-05-06 10:51AM | 0 recs
Al cheated on tipper?

Al got robbed by the Scotus, that was his only sin...

by WashStateBlue 2009-05-06 01:00PM | 0 recs
When was this 'sudden embrace'?

Because his 2008 campaign is a pretty natural followup to his "Two Americas" message from the 2004 primary season.

It's fair to say the "Two Americas" campaign was well to the left of his votes as a Senator representing NC.  But it's quite reasonable to think that representing NC might've somewhat constrained Edwards, or anyone else of an economic populist bent, in ways that trying to win the Democratic Presidential nomination wouldn't have.

At any rate, I don't think it was a mistake for Edwards to have run for President this last time around.  Once it was clear that Obama and Hillary were his rivals for the nomination, it was also clear that his chances of winning were remote.  But he used the platform of running for the Presidency to move Obama's and Hillary's positions leftward, and to raise issues about economic disparities that others weren't raising - and it's hard to see that he could have been anywhere near as effective in doing so via any other platform available to him.

by RT 2009-05-06 06:00AM | 0 recs
A Complicated Answer

For someone my age I cannot help but be reminded of the 1984 election when Gary Hart's campaign imploded from the back of a yacht named "Monkey Business."  As a die-hard Mondale supporter and campaign volunteer I remember my disappointment when several friends chose to support Gary Hart instead.  It is difficult to put into words the emotional investment an activist makes for a candidate including the time and money that goes along with it.

There was nothing Machievallian about the Hart campaign imploding and having my Canidate of choice benefit.  Instead I watched my friends in a gut wrenching act disavow the Hart candidacy and walk away emotionally destroyed by his betrayal.  I didn't know Hart's family though I had enormous sympathy for them.  But i did know my friends who made that emotional investment.  I watched in helpless despair as they had their guts ripped out by someone they believed in.  What an awful year that was.

As a life long Democrat I had a perfect record through the 2000 election of chosing a candidate early and having them be the eventual nominee dating back to 1976.  Not until 2004 did I miss when I chose to support Howard Dean for President.  Once the Dean campaign faded after Iowa I shifted my support ot John Edwards.  I was somewhat justified in my support once Kerry chose Edwards for a running mate which made my continued support in 2008 only stronger.

After the election in 2008 I was and still am elated that Barack Obama won.  I had put my support down as a noble effort on my part to continue to support a candidate who I thought had America's best interest at heart with a hopeful wish that we had not heard the last of John Edwards on the national stage.  I cannot put into words the rage and anger I had toward him at this betrayal of not just me but those who gave their all in support of his candidacy.  My anger was not just aimed at Edwards but Elizabeth as well for letting this charade continue even after she discoverd the affair.  In hind sight she should have blown the whistle on him and the whole campaign before it even got off the ground to save die hard supporters heart ache, time and money.

Upon reflection though I realized that when you find your life threatened with a terminal disease and reaching for you family for support these other mitigating factors seem insignificant by comparison.  In any event my break with Edwards is complete now.  I don't want to hear from him and I'm not interested in reading about anything he's involved in.  The only thing I can take from this is the gratification that his 2008 campaign did have the effect of moving the field to the left more than they would have on their own.  I agree with the above commenter whole heartedly who pointed this out.

As for Edwards though, yeah, I'm done with him.

Thanks for nothing John.

by DuvalDem 2009-05-06 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: A Complicated Question

I am sorry but Edwards is still the best candidate for me.  He was the one had the most progressive platform.

by demjim 2009-05-06 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: A Complicated Question

Um.. I hate to break this to you but he is not the best candidate because he couldn't get elected to scoop dog poop at this point.

by obama4presidente 2009-05-06 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: A Complicated Question

Sometimes the best candidate for your views doesn't win.  Funny how you were talking below about Edwards not having conviction, but it sounds like you would vote against your convictions if the person could win.

by Vox Populi 2009-05-06 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: A Complicated Question

Its not so much voting against your convictions as accepting a little less of them. I would rather actaully get 75% of what I want from a candidate that can win then dream wistfully of the guy would have give me 90-99% if only he had won. Especially since when he loses I get someone who will give me, at best 5% and at worst -90%.

by JDF 2009-05-06 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: A Complicated Question

Convictions?? THE GUY IS A SLEAZE BAG mac!

by obama4presidente 2009-05-06 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: A Complicated Question

I cannot believe people are still defending John Edwards! The guy was always a liar. He stands only for himself and has no convictions...HE is a used car salesman.. say anything do anything to get what he wants.

Its been fun watching him flame out. Too bad his wife has to resort to using all this to peddle her latest book. She doesn't know if he is the father of this kid but still lives with him and is married to him? What kind of a freaking relationship is that??

Seriously, I can't stand these guys and getting rid of them is the best thing that has happened. Thankfully the guy is buried and is now a punchline to a joke.

Oh and lets not forget he is under investigation for using campaign funds to pay off his woman on the side. Any way you slice its clear she had no experience doing what she was paid to do so she was being paid to do something else..

by obama4presidente 2009-05-06 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: A Complicated Question

Glad to see you could argue on the issues and explain exactly WHY you feel the way you do... moron.

by Vox Populi 2009-05-06 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: A Complicated Question

Listen, I was a strong supporter of John Edwards here on the diaries and I raised a some money for him as well.  Anyone who thinks his populism was "suddenly embraced" is a complete moron.  Populism was his hallmark since first running for office in 1997/1998.

I enjoy that he brought up the issue of poverty and all that jazz, but I was repulsed when after losing the primary and not being selected as Obama's running mate he shut down the school program he created in North Carolina (a campaign prop, in my opinion).  Not to mention his family values campaign about being devoted to his wife and kids, etc (who were also campaign props, I'm afraid).

I'm still thankful that Edwards was in the race.  I think he brought Clinton and Obama to the left especially on health care.

While I hope someone in the party will pick up the issues Edwards carried and dropped, I hope they do it with a little more genuineness.

by Vox Populi 2009-05-06 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: A Complicated Question

I think he brought Clinton and Obama to the left especially on health care.

I am beginning to wonder how much good it does to bring the dialogue to the left in a primary, when the message is simply a way to get elected. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, and I am appalled at how far to the right the proposed legislation on healthcare is becoming as it makes its way through the sausage grinder of Congress.

by Coral 2009-05-06 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: A Complicated Question

Very appropriate metaphor of yours about Congress:

Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.

Otto von Bismark

by Shaun Appleby 2009-05-06 08:06AM | 0 recs
Re: A Complicated Question

Yeah we remember.. you were a strong supporter of this douchebag slezeball.

Says a lot about you.

by obama4presidente 2009-05-06 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: A Complicated Question

The best part is that without that "douchebag sleazeball" and his former supporters like me, Barack Obama would still be the junior senator from Illinois.  So all I can say is, you're welcome.

by Vox Populi 2009-05-06 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: A Complicated Question

I'd encourage you to have some empathy for the feelings of others but moreover I'd ask that you express an opinion without insulting others.

John Edwards may be a sleazeball but that does not mean those of us who took him at his word and believed in him need to be insulted.

John Edwards when all is said and done moved the party leftward. And early on he was capturing 20% of the vote in the Democratic party. That's not insignificant.

by Charles Lemos 2009-05-06 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: A Complicated Question

My, my, how things have changed around here in two short years.  It seems to me that running for the presidency with this kind of baggage was absolutely unforgivable, and given the significant, one might say unequivocal, support Edwards had among progressives it is a brilliant piece of luck that his campaign fizzled when it did.  Though he arguably did tug the other candidates to the left he did so at the risk of knowingly damaging the progressive 'brand' with his shenanigans all the while.

Hard to fathom, frankly, and Trippi should have known better too.

by Shaun Appleby 2009-05-06 07:38AM | 0 recs
did Trippi know?

He didn't join the campaign until spring 2007.

by desmoinesdem 2009-05-06 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: did Trippi know?

Well, apparently not.  But the question of when the affair actually ended is much discussed and open-ended at the moment.  There seems to be more than one staffer with doubts on that point not to mention the timing of the pregnancy and the unconfirmed paternity of the child.  And it was Trippi's job to know, wasn't it?  I'm assuming it was a deal breaker scandal for the general election given the family values pitch of the Edwards campaign, even if the affair had ended in 2006.

by Shaun Appleby 2009-05-06 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: did Trippi know?

Is Joe Trippi even talking to John Edwards?

I'll add that I adore Elizabeth. If John retains any respect from me it is from the fact that Elizabeth is still there.

What is so galling to me is all this happened after the Monica Lewinsky saga? How could another politician even think of putting the nation through such turmoil again? It was callous and self-serving to have run for the Presidency.

by Charles Lemos 2009-05-06 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: did Trippi know?

I have no idea but Trippi is one of my political heroes, for better or worse I just like his style.  I hope he stays well clear of this mudslide.

by Shaun Appleby 2009-05-06 04:30PM | 0 recs
obviously he waited to tell Elizabeth

until after his announcement tour, so that he would have an excuse not to "raise question" by dropping out.

It's too bad he was dumb enough to think he wouldn't get caught. On the other hand, look how many politicians get away with having affairs.

I am sad to see so many bloggers bashing Elizabeth. John didn't level with her about the extent of the affair and certainly didn't tell her he would continue to see the other woman during 2007. Elizabeth had 30 years invested in their marriage and his career, and I'm surprised to see so many people condemn her for campaigning with her husband. As far as she knew, the affair was over in December 2006.

by desmoinesdem 2009-05-06 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: A Complicated Question

The messed up thing is he HAD the perfect out to leave the race with no questions or issues and preserve his standing... When they announced Elizabeth was terminal.  

by 30000Fine 2009-05-06 09:54AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------